The disengagement (Kerry's going to withdraw from Iraq)

Sometimes you'll hear things that are so out of left field, so unexpected, or so troubling that you don't register them at first. Only later, be it seconds or days, do you recall the words with a flicker of surprised recognition. Such was my reaction to yesterday's interview between John Kerry, John Edwards, and NPR's Steve Inskeep. (Realaudio stream here; no official transcript, so all mistakes below are mine.) It's worth going through this piece by piece, not in the spirit of "fisking," which tends to promote shoddy writing and thinking in equal measure, but with the intent to parse. We'll return to a synthesis and conclusion at the end.

The section of the interview we're interested in begins at roughly 3 minutes, 45 seconds into the audio stream:

Inskeep: Moving on to another subject, now -- Iraq. You have said that you would try harder to bring in America's allies. But, that said, if you look ahead a year, two years, if you win this election, how is the situation on the ground in Iraq going to be any different than it is now?

Kerry: Well, it has to be different from the way it is now. It is not safe today. It is not working for Iraqis. I believe it is critical to our success to have a fresh start. This President, regrettably, rushed to war, without a plan to win the peace, he pushed our allies aside, we've lost our credibility with the world, we need to restore that. And I think I can do that.

Inskeep: This is what I'm wondering, though: In a year from now, since you do want to remain committed to Iraq, isn't it the case that there will still be many, many thousands of American troops there, still fighting the insurgents if the insurgents want to fight?

Kerry: Ah, no, not necessarily at all, because I think our diplomacy can produce a very different ingredient on the ground. And if it can't produce a different ingredient on the ground, lemme tell you something, that says something about what Iraqis want, and what the people in the region want. I believe that within a year from now, we could significantly reduce American forces in Iraq. And, ah, that's my plan.

What do we take away from this? John Kerry asserts that diplomacy will change things in Iraq. John Kerry allows that diplomacy may not change things in Iraq. John Kerry refers to the requisite transformative diplomacy in the context of diplomacy within Iraq and the region. It is this diplomacy that he expects to bring American troops home. Let's move on:

Inskeep: A year from right now? Kerry: Absolutely we could reduce the numbers. You bet.

Edwards: Can I just add to what John's saying? What he's describing just creates an entirely new dynamic. These are not abstract concepts -- he's really thought this through. For example, bringing in NATO, and having a new President, a fresh start, dealing with the international community, can convert this from an American occupation to an international presence helping the Iraqis provide for their own security. So, a year from now, which is what you're asking about....

Edwards: ....We could have a completely different dynamic than what we have today in Iraq.

Herein we see more of the mythmaking that drives modern Democrats. Elections they lose are stolen. Those who voted for this war don't include them. Nato is not involved in Iraq. The international presence in Iraq is zero. Viz., British and Italians fighting and dying as you read this; linked above. The strategy of "helping the Iraqis provide for their own security" does not presently exist. Viz., our Iraqi allies fighting and dying as you read this; linked above.

And the greatest myth of all: that the sine qua non of any improvement is a President John F. Kerry. The man who would be him speaks on:

Kerry: Let me give an example. If I get other countries involved in the training of troops, and we're training them more rapidly, the Iraqis themselves can take over a great deal more of their own security. But you need stability to be able to do that. How do you achieve the stability? You need to have more people involved in the process. We have not seen this Administration do the statesmanship, do the diplomacy necessary, and America is paying a very high price both in terms of the lives of our young, and the money that's coming out of the taxpayer's pockets. I will do a better job of building those alliances and getting our troops home. And I will do a much better job of reducing the burden on the National Guard and Reserves and their families who are paying a very high price for the President's rush.

But we've already seen, other countries are involved in the training of troops. And is it not something of a poor plan that depends wholly upon the unproven and historically untrustworthy goodwill and independent volition of other nations? In his acceptance speech at the DNC, Kerry vowed: "I will never give any nation or international institution a veto over our national security." And yet, his plan of action here does just that: indeed, it is premised upon those nations whom he assumes will treat him well not exercising that veto.

And if they do? If the hope-and-pray option doesn't work? What then? John Kerry does not say. Indeed, like the neocon ideologues he decries, it does not appear to occur to him that Option A may fail. And like them, he will proceed with the intended consequence of Option A even in its absence.

Inskeep: Regarding the effort to reduce the burden on the National Guard -- you've promised there will be an additional 40,000 US troops. You've said --

Inskeep: -- and given that you want to reduce the number of US troops in Iraq rather quickly, within a few months after assuming office --

Inskeep: Well, I want to know -- the question is, I want to know where are you intending for those troops to be used?

Kerry: We have huge obligations around the world still. North Korea ... we have Europe ... uh, Bosnia, Kosovo. We're not even doing what we probably ought to be doing in Darfur, in Africa. This Administration never responded fast enough to Liberia because of how overextended we are. So I believe --

Kerry: -- the way you do it is by getting those active duty in place over a period of time. Now, ultimately, I want to reduce the size. I want to reduce the deployments. And if we have the proper effort over the next few years, my vision with respect to North Korea, and our presence in Europe, if the European defense force emerges, as they are talking of it, we can begin really bring some of America's troops home and begin to reduce our overall military burden. But for the moment, for this moment in time, we need these extra personnel.

We have already here noted the Kerry plan, cribbed from an extant plan of Rumsfeld's DoD, for an increase of 40,000 men in our armed forces (presumably meant for the Army). Now we see that even though those men are meant to compensate for a shortfall in wartime, they will not be sent to the actual theater of war. (Let us note, by the bye, that both Rumsfeld's actual 30,000 and Kerry's imaginary 40,000 are both insufficient to truly cover the shortfalls at hand.) One might rightly ask whether they will free up other soldiers to go to war themselves; one would then have to note that this would involve both a rupture in the Army's current standards of enlistment -- by which you are, ultimately, sent wherever the Army pleases -- and a negation of John Kerry's own obvious dogged determination to reduce troop levels in Iraq no matter what.

And it's not just in Iraq -- he envisions a reduction of American military commitments abroad in all theaters. Kerry simultaneously reproaches the Bush Administration for not getting militarily involved in more operational theaters -- Liberia, Darfur -- and speaks of a desire to withdraw around the world. It is a desire so strong that he is already mentally offloading strategic responsibilities to entities, like the pan-European defense force, that do not exist in any meaningful form. It is a desire so strong that he is quite obviously prepared do to it no matter what.

Think about that last bit. Think back to the interview excerpt's beginning. John Kerry avers that "diplomacy" can secure a peace or stability of sorts from groups and peoples with whom we are at war and whom we have yet to defeat. This, he asserts, will create the conditions for troop withdrawals. Oh, and if it doesn't? Because it won't: "[I]f it can't produce a different ingredient on the ground, lemme tell you something, that says something about what Iraqis want, and what the people in the region want." The rhetorical ground is prepared. The will-of-the-people rhetoric is deployed. The stage for the grim, resolute, yielding-to-reality (so unlike those neocons!) President John F. Kerry is set. Remember: if every best-case scenario for withdrawal doesn't work; if diplomacy(!) mysteriously fails to sway murderous fanatics to goodwill; if the French don't abruptly dispatch the Foreign Legion to Anbar Province; and if big-hearted Europeans don't immediately begin training thousands of Jeffersonian-minded Iraqis -- in short,

Remember. Mark it well. He's going to withdraw anyway. His plan, such as it is, and predicated entirely upon third parties acting just so, could not work at all: and he will withdraw. Beyond Iraq, we are enmeshed in a titanic, global war on terror: and he speaks of withdrawing from every corner of that globe. It's not a strategy motivated by careful thought or the nuance for which he is so justly famous. It's an idee fixe. It is retreat and retrenchment as ends in themselves. It is an abdication of the American role in the world not seen since the bitter days of the 1970s. I said before that it took me some time to process the import of Kerry's words in this interview. I drove on to work, and I sat and thought it through. And then I typed the transcript out. And then I realized just what the man is proposing to do.

John Kerry vaulted into public life on the bloodied backs of the millions of slaughtered, enslaved and expelled Indochinese who suffered their fates -- and still suffer their fates -- because he and those like him achieved their policy victories back in those aforementioned bitter days. One might expect lessons learned from the experience: some measure of empathy or compassion for the victims deprived of the shield of American might and ideals. It was, after all, not merely the only thing keeping them somewhat free: it was the only thing keeping a few millions of them alive. But it seems he has learned precisely nothing. Now, three decades later, in Iraq and around the world there is another bitter fight -- and there is the same instinct to cut and run, dressed up in fantastical hypotheticals and dronings-on about priorities. What man wishes to be President of the United States, even as he wishes to not win its wars? The names McClellan, McGovern, Debs, and Thomas spring to mind.

I've had my profound problems with George W. Bush's handling of Iraq. His strategic management has been uneven; his assessment of his generals has been often lacking; and his direction of certain battles -- Fallujah most glaringly -- skirts catastrophe. But I rest assured that he will not countenance the greatest catastrophe of all: defeat. Whatever his flaws, the President will see the Iraq war through. We can ask no less of a leader entrusted with our nation's honor and future.

John Kerry, by contrast, is planning to abandon that nation and its people. He is planning to allow, if he must, the enemies who massacred Americans in the clear fall skies of three years past to win in Iraq. He is planning to negate and nullify and heroic sacrifices of our Marines and our allies as they crush Islamism in Najaf. He is planning to blame it on events beyond his control: the international community; the current President; the will of the Iraqi people; the realities of resources, of finances, of logistics. Why, after all, close firehouses in Brooklyn yet open them in Baghdad? Callow rhetoric to prepare for callow defeat. The conclusion is that inescapable. And it's that simple.

"Most of America isn't being told how truly awful a Kerry Administration would be for our country, and the world in general."

_____________________

I agree, but it would seem that the world press is concerned. The following article is from The Asian Pacific Post. They seem to be concerned about "Flip-Flop Kerry".

===============================

Editorial: Is John Kerry China's secret weapon against Taiwan?

Aug 5, 2004

Asian Pacific Post

Ambiguity has always been the hallmark of U.S. presidential wannabe John Kerry.

When it comes to Vietnam, he boasts about his war heroics as a navy lieutenant but does not say that he was opposed to the conflict and joined protests with the likes of his buddy Peter Yarrow, from the Peter, Paul and Mary trio.

When it comes to the environment, he slams President Bush‘s dismissal of the Kyoto climate control accord but will not come out say how he plans to address global warming.

When it comes to China, he calls the communist government “currency predators“ for their involvement in U.S. treasury issues but has no qualms taking money for his campaign from Beijing‘s spies and their cronies.

So who is this John Kerry that hopes to ride the wave of unpopularity against the Bush administration?

For many Kerry and his fresh-faced running mate John Edwards are a welcome relief to the war-mongering of Bush and Cheney.

But beneath that facade lies a dangerous and simmering situation which if explodes will make the war in Iraq pale in comparison.

Kerry is of the view that the “one China, two systems“ policy, which is already in tatters in Hong Kong is the model for Taiwan.

While Beijing was recently talking about invading Taiwan and showing off its military might in Hong Kong with a parade of 3,000 soldiers, armoured vehicles and helicopters Kerry‘s democrats were making their trademark ambiguous reference to the issue.

“We are committed to a “one China“ policy, and will continue to support a peaceful resolution of cross-Straits issues that is consistent with the wishes and best interests of the Taiwanese people,“ states Kerry‘s Democratic platform.

Missing conspicuously from the statement is any reference to the Taiwan Relations Act which states it is the objective of the US to preserve and enhance the human rights of the people of Taiwan.

Maybe it was an oversight but the Democrats have done nothing to correct it.

Instead there seems to be a curious coincidence of timing between the release of the Democratic platform and China raising its threats against Taiwan to fever pitch.

The Peoples Liberation Army, after the Democratic convention in Boston, which endorsed Kerry, said it will “smash and crush“ any Taiwanese move for independence.

“There could be no peace or stability if Taiwan sought independence,“ China‘s defense minister Cao Gangchuan said.

Kerry‘s connections to China‘s military run deep and there is little doubt that he is being viewed as an ally by Beijing, especially because Bush won‘t allow China to buy American weapons.

Former Chinese spymaster General Ji Shengde gave big-time Democrat donor Johnny Chung close to US$300,000 to gain influence in the White House.

Chung later pled guilty to funneling illegal donations in the thousands of dollars to Kerry and to Clinton‘s 1996 reelection campaign on orders from General Ji.

He told investigators; “I see the White House as like a subway — you have to put in coins to open the gates.“

In July 1996 Chung also went to Kerry‘s office to seek help in getting one Lt. Colonel Liu Chaoying to meet with the Securities and Exchange Commission.

Lt. Colonel Liu was then an executive of China Aerospace, a PLA military owned company that produces nuclear tipped missiles and helped arm Pakistan.

U.S. congressional investigators say Lt. Col. Liu is a communist high-tech spy and an arms broker.

What he knew or did not know about these players is up for speculation.

What Kerry did was immediately organize a meeting between Lt. Col Liu and officials of the Securities and Exchange Commission because the Chinese agent wanted to get China Aerospace listed on the U.S. Stock Exchange.

In gratitude, Chung held a Kerry fund-raiser at a Beverly Hills hotel that raked in US$10,000 of Chinese Army money for the senator‘s re-election campaign. Kerry considered Chung a member of “my team”.

The connections do not stop there.

Another Chinese-American businessman George Chao-chi Chu suspected of being a Chinese agent pumped money into Kerry‘s coffers.

Chu had been one of the Democratic Party‘s top fundraisers, raising more than US $500,000 before the China-gate scandal hit in 1997.

Kerry‘s camp has returned part of the money sent by Chu while maintaining that he has never been convicted of any crime.

Why they returned some and not all of the money is mired in ambiguity.

Then there is John Huang, who pled guilty to illegal fundraising for the Democrats. Huang remains free despite the fact that he refused to answer whether he was an agent of the Chinese military over 2,000 times while under oath.

Kerry‘s campaign elected to return Huang‘s donation.

But when it comes to ex-Philippine congressman Mark Jimenez who has been sentenced to more than two years in jail for federal election fraud, Kerry has decided to keep his donation.

Jimenez is a confidante of jailed Philippine president Joseph Estrada, who in turn is a crony of one of China‘s top front men Stanley Ho who was also involved in the U.S. illegal donations investigation.

Kerry‘s China connections are worrisome and one can keep connecting the dots that lead to the communist regime‘s top echelon.

But ultimately it boils down to one issue.

What will Kerry do if China attacks Taiwan?

Guess we will all have to wait for another episode of Kerry‘s ambiguity.

Copyright 2004 The Asian Pacific Post with all rights reserved. Reproduction of content permitted only if accompanied with attribution to The Asian Pacific Post and link to website, www.asianpacificpost.com.

Check this out. O'Neill Kerry debate 1971

http://www.swiftvets.com/staticpages/index.php?page=Debate2

MR. CAVETT: No one has said that there'll be a bloodbath if we pull out, which is a cliche we used to hear a lot. Does either of you still think there would be a –

MR. O'NEILL: I think if we pull out prematurely before a viable South Vietnamese government is established, that the record of the North Vietnamese in the past and the record of the Viet Cong in the area I served in at Operation [unintelligible] clearly indicates that's precisely what would happen in that country.

MR. O'NEILL: I'd say that their record at Thua, at Daq Son [phonetic spelling], at a lot of other places, pretty clearly indicate that's precisely what would happen. Obviously, in Thua, we've discovered, how many, 5,700 graves so far, at Daq Son four or five hundred.

MR. KERRY: The true fact of the matter is, Dick, that there's absolutely no guarantee that there would be a bloodbath. There's no guarantee that there wouldn't. One has to, obviously, conjecture on this. However, I think the arguments clearly indicate that there probably wouldn't be.

First of all, if you read back historically, in 1950 the French made statements – there was a speech made by, I think it was General LeClerc, that if they pulled out, France pulled out, then there would be a bloodbath. That wasn't a bloodbath. The same for Algeria. There hasn't been.

I think that it's really kind of a baiting argument. There is no interest on the part of the North Vietnamese to try to massacre the people once people have agreed to withdraw. There's just no pur- –

___________________________________
Interesting that Kerry could conceivably single handedly cause the U.S. to lose not one but TWO wars. If he is elected and publishes a timetable to pull out of Iraq.

Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.